Ministry of Environment and Forests acted illegally when it provided an opportunity for project developers to obtain post facto environmental clearance for activities conducted without prior environmental review and authorization.
A U.S. energy regulatory agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued a certificate authorizing a natural gas company to upgrade part of a pipeline. The agency improperly segmented its environmental review of the project by failing to consider the cumulative and connected impacts of other related pipeline projects in the vicinity.
National Green Tribunal overturned an environmental clearance issued for a coal-fired power plant proposed by India’s largest thermal power producer. The Tribunal found that environmental information had been concealed and misrepresented, and the EIA and public participation processes were faulty.
Tribunal quashed the environmental clearance issued for a coal-fired power plant for failure to prepare an adequate cumulative impact assessment. “Rapid” assessment submitted by power company did not provide a comprehensive view of the impacts.
Decision by Secretary of the Interior to withdraw large parcels of land near Grand Canyon National Park to entry for uranium exploration and mining projects was not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. Court approved the agency’s “cautious and careful approach” because of the risk of severe groundwater contamination from mining activities and threats to sacred and traditional places of tribal people.
The National Green Tribunal suspended the environmental clearance for a proposed hydroelectric dam until a study is completed to determine the impact of the project on endangered Black-necked cranes and its habitat.
A U.S. court blocked the proposed expansion of an underground coal mine because the environmental assessment (EA) lacked sufficient analysis of the indirect and cumulative impacts of coal transportation and coal combustion. The EA also improperly emphasized the benefits of additional coal mining to the local economy while ignoring the costs of anticipated greenhouse gas emissions from burning the coal.
The High Court of Kenya remanded the environmental license issued for a port project for reconsideration and directed the project proponent to pay Kshs. 1.7 billion in compensation to affected fishing communities who will be impacted by the project. During the reconsideration process, decisionmakers must evaluate the external costs of the port project on the environment and local communities.
This project has been made possible by the generous support of the Philip Stoddard Brown and Adele Smith Brown Foundation